oihfedfhorigiojisdeffandomcom-20200214-history
,hfyjntgjn
MIT’s senior academic and administrative leaders — President L. Rafael Reif led discussions about several questions raised in a report to the president concerning the case of Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide in January 2013 and who faced criminal prosecution for actions that took place on MIT’s campus. Upon Swartz’s death, Reif asked Hal Abelson, the Class of 1922 Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, to lead an analysis of MIT’s actions in the case. In July 2013, Abelson, who was joined in his work by MIT economist and Institute Professor Emeritus Peter Diamond, submitted to Reif a report: “MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz.” This extensive document concluded with a set of questions that the authors believed the MIT community ought to consider. Some of these questions centered on broad issues of national or global significance; others centered more tightly on issues relevant to MIT policies and resources. Reif, upon receiving the report in July 2013, made it public. In his letter to the MIT community commenting on the report, he wrote that he was tasking then-Provost Chris Kaiser and Faculty Chair Steven Hall with leading community discussions about the broadest questions, and that he was asking Executive Vice President and Treasurer Israel Ruiz to lead a review of MIT’s policies on the collection, provision, and retention of electronic records. He also wrote that he would ask Academic Council to review any other questions related to MIT policies and resources. Concerning the questions the report raised about open access, intellectual property, and ethics in the digital domain, Reif wrote, “Because these questions bear so directly on the expertise, interests and values of the people of MIT, I believe we should explore them, respectfully debate our differences, and translate our learning into constructive action.” Electronic records policies At the request of Reif, Ruiz convened and chaired a working group of faculty, students and staff to conduct a review that would address the following question from the Abelson Report: Should MIT policies on the collection, provision, and retention of electronic records be reviewed? On Dec. 17, 2013, the working group led by Ruiz presented its findings and recommendations to Academic Council. Academic Council endorsed these recommendations, and MIT is now moving forward to implement them. As the group first approached its work, it quickly realized the possible immensity of its charge, given the extensive quantity and variety of electronic records across the Institute. It therefore narrowed its review to electronic records and their backups that are primarily machine-generated, exist solely in electronic format, and are maintained centrally. The group focused particularly on records and backup procedures for records that often require weighing the need for privacy and the need for security in the course of making decisions about the collection and provision of certain information. These include network logs, card-access swipe logs, video surveillance tapes, and audiotapes of emergency communications, such as 911 calls. The key recommendation of the working group was that MIT form a standing presidential committee on electronic records and online data privacy. Due to the variety of electronic records and the diverse needs and viewpoints of the MIT community around issues of privacy and security of electronic data, the working group believes that proper treatment of these important issues requires ongoing commitment and focused attention. A critical aspect of the committee’s work will be to develop for MIT an online data privacy policy. The committee will also develop a set of principles to govern access and retention periods, refine and clarify policies and procedures where needed, and address any gaps that may exist. The working group also recommended that the Institute regularly communicate policies and procedures pertaining to electronic records and online data privacy. A gateway website will be developed to provide, in a single location, easy access to documentation concerning policies and procedures, helpful resources and guidance materials, and links to documentation maintained in various offices across MIT. An annual email to the MIT community will highlight relevant policies and procedures, and training will be provided for those with access to and oversight responsibility for sensitive electronic records. “The working group’s recommendations are intended to provide a sound approach to treating sensitive electronic information with integrity and care, and are offered with respect for the values that we as a community embrace,” Ruiz says. “We are committed to protecting the electronic information we create every day.” The membership for the presidential committee is now being considered, and it is expected that the committee will convene early this spring. MIT’s commitment to open access Academic Council asked Steve Gass, interim director of libraries, to address the question from the Abelson Report that concerned the Institute’s commitment to open access: Should MIT strengthen its activities in support of open access to scholarly publications? Gass reported to Academic Council that now is an opportune time for MIT to be asking itself this question, given that the Institute is approaching the fifth anniversary of MIT’s Faculty Open Access Policy, which encourages MIT faculty members to share their scholarly articles openly over the Web. Since the passage of the policy, MIT Libraries have deposited into DSpace@MIT — MIT’s publicly accessible research repository — about 37 percent of the papers written by faculty members: some 10,800 papers. More than 1.6 million downloads of those papers have been made: Currently, about 90,000 downloads are happening every month. Gass noted that when the open-access policy was established in 2009, it was determined that the policy would be reviewed in 2014 by the Faculty Policy Committee. In the spirit of providing thoughts for that required review, as well as for addressing the Abelson Report’s related question, he and a small group of Libraries colleagues explored ways that MIT could build on the success of its open-access policy. The primary possible action that emerged for this working group concerns the way MIT’s open-access effort is governed. Gass suggested that MIT consider creating a new faculty body to lead the effort, rather than relying on a working group of the Faculty Committee on the Library System, whose charge limits it to issues around implementation. A restructuring of some sort could allow for broader issues — such as exploring new models of journal publishing — to be addressed more effectively.